This book starts out with an offensive story about hunting, a cruel and cowardly activity, in which the protagonist, as a child, celebrates the experience of wounding a goose which, having been lured down to seek companionship with the decoys it takes to be its bretheren, is then chased across a field - painful and terrified - until it is tackled and torturously killed. What a pleasant story. Anyone who isn't offended by this activity needs to have their head examined.

It's about the aesthetic. The irony of something we suspect is acquired, yet when affected produces regrettable effects of varying consequence. Controversy? De gustibus non est disputandum.

horn4000@xmission.com

Right off the bat, let's get this straight: Krakauer is not a writer; he's a reporter, and not a very good one. This story involved a cult that was an offshoot of Mormonism, but Krakauer manages to leave uninformed readers with a undeserved negative impression of the mainstream Mormon church. If he's going to report, he owes it to reader to research his subject well and report without bias. As a reporter, he's a hack. As a writer- well, there's no art here. I'm not a Mormon but I live in the epicenter of that religion, and have plenty of contact with both conventional and fundamentalist Mormons - and Krakauer's account has little if anything in common with either.

I think Alice Sebold's editors should grant her take-backs on the ending before the softcover version comes out. I'd love to see how she would re-write the ending now - without a Deus Ex Machina. You go girl.

This is a very creative screenplay about the challenges facing a neurotic screenwriter trying to adapt a book into a movie. About the challenge of trying to do something inventive, while reluctantly conceding the need to conform to traditional dramatic formulas.

Among other things, it parodies the way writers invent bogus life lessons for the audience to take home, highlighting the way audiences desperately want a movie to be about something. (Premise vs. story.) Read some of the reviews ï¿ itï¿s fascinating yet pathetic to see that people actually do swallow these hook-line-and-sinker. The screenwriters must find this hilarious.

Nicholas Cage is amazing in this movie. His performance in the opening scene (at lunch with the studio executive) is absolutely brilliant.

I've written non-fiction, but this is a whole 'nother thing. Learning about the intricacies of writing fiction has engendered a new level of respect for those who create anything publishable, to the point where even the notion of any casual reader offering critical opinions about a published book of fiction seems audacious. Point is, this book will help you to read like a writer, so you will appreciate your reading so much more.

Donna Tartt is an unusually talented writer. I read her work slowly, in order to savor the language and better-appreciate her powers of observation and insight. This book is well worth reading, and I find it annoying that "The Lovely Bones" somehow managed to outsell it during the same period. This book contains a couple of mild annoyances, which I want to mention only because they are contrivances that taint her otherwise-flawless work and, in the hope that she reads these reviews, I want her to know that readers notice. One is that she employs the murder of a young person in what I assume is an attempt to capture the sympathy of the typical child-worshipping american, who, idiotically, feels that there is no greater tragedy. The other is that her posthumous characterization of this kid is apparently contrived to warm our hearts to him. Personally, I would find that child annoying, and I have much greater appreciation for her protagonist (the wilful, recalcitrant Harriet) whom, I prefer to think, may have a great deal in common with the author herself. My earlier review of this book was premature, and I guiltily recant that testimony. Any intellectual hauteur this author may harbor, she is completely entitled to it. This is unusually good writing.

Donna Tartt is an unusually talented writer. I read her work slowly, in order to savor the language and better-appreciate her powers of observation and insight. This book is well worth reading, and I find it annoying that "The Lovely Bones" somehow managed to outsell it during the same period. This book contains a couple of mild annoyances, which I want to mention only because they are contrivances that taint her otherwise-flawless work and, in the hope that she reads these reviews, I want her to know that readers notice. One is that she employs the murder of a young person in what I assume is an attempt to capture the sympathy of the typical child-worshipping american, who, idiotically, feels that there is no greater tragedy. The other is that her posthumous characterization of this kid is apparently contrived to warm our hearts to him. Personally, I would find that child annoying, and I have much greater appreciation for her protagonist (the wilful, recalcitrant Harriet) whom, I prefer to think, may have a great deal in common with the author herself. My earlier review of this book was premature, and I guiltily recant that testimony. Any intellectual hauteur this author may harbor, she is completely entitled to it. This is unusually good writing.

While is it generally a thrill to watch Jodie Foster work, this film is so contrived it should offend even the average american. Matthew McConnahey is talentless - he detracts from the film - and his character's prominence is not the least bit credible. Another character lacking any credibility whatsoever is the token-black-female-in-an-intellectual-position-of-power. This is the kind of film that reminds me that I should forever give up on Hollywood, and pick up a good book instead (eg, something by the likes of Donna Tartt).

Bridget Fonda plays the part well and this americanized version of the screenplay isn't bad, but the boyfriend really detracts from the picture. First of all he's a jackass. Second of all, it's inconsistent with the story that he isn't killed off, which would probably delight most of the viewers anyway, since he's rather dislikeable.